POSE Running anyone??

Unless he has changed what he

Unless he has changed what he says in the last 2 years, Romanov's claim was the following:

By Falling, you allow gravity to convert your potential energy in to *forward* kinetic energy. You fall forward, thus converting gravity into forward motion. And, Romanov really does (or at least did) mean that you get this energy out of gravity for free.

Here is why it doesn't work.

Any potential energy from gravity is strictly vertical. If you hold an egg, say 1 meter above the ground, and let it fall. It drops, vertically. But, it doesn't go forward or backward.

The lean/fall in POSE is correct in that you have to lean at an angle that is matched to your speed. The faster you go, the more you have to lean forward. It is only a few degrees, even at a high speed, but even a few degrees is enough. It is correct, that the lean/fall will pull you forward. That means that you fall a bit with each step. Like the egg with each step you are falling a bit (say 2 cm). But--and this is the rub--you have to put exact the same amount of energy back in. If you don't then, with each step you are 2 cm closer to the ground.

(Note to Neil_D: when moving at a constant speed every runner, everywhere, and at all times, is centered over his or her center of gravity. When moving forward, the center of gravity moves just in front of the belly button, but the overall body MUST be in equalibrium, otherwise a wanted or unwanted acceleration is going to take place. The real POSE contribution here is getting rid of overstriding and heel striking.)

So, in reality, with each step, you push yourself back up those 2 cm, which means that you invest just as much energy as you "got for free" out of gravity. If you didn't do this, you would be on the ground very shortly. Or, another way to think about it, is you put energy into your forward movement with your legs, to keep the angle the same. In either case, you must put energy into it. Physics just doesn't allow a free lunch.

This pushing happens at the moment of your foot strike. It has nothing to do with the Pull. The Pull is a useful concept, because it teaches not to think about the foot strike, thereby letting your feet do their natural thing. But, that doesn't change the fact that the foot strike (and the consequent support mechanism of our entire body) must push us back up. Ideally, we wouldn't really fall at all, nor would we push back up. This would be eliminating all vertical movement, meaning that all of our energy is invested in going forward. No one really gets to this nirvana, but good technique gets us close.

That said: if you talk about matters of perception, the Fall might be a useful concept. It is perhaps a good way to feel the point where you are at your center of gravity (which is what I think Neil_D is saying). But, it is wrong physically. And Romanov said many times that he really believes that you are getting some "extra" energy out of gravity.

If my lay physical explanation doesn't convince you, then please talk to a real physicist, who might be better at explaning it.

Please note that I have a differentiated opinion of POSE and Romanov. I have no problem with saying he contributes good things in some places, but he is wrong on gravity. And please note that I am actually on Romanov's side here: I don't want to see him spoiling an otherwise useful technique with a theory on gravity that discredits him.

I am not going to further comment on what I called "Church of Romanov". I have already stated twice here what I think. It has been noticed by others. Let's just agree to disagree and call it a night.

Cheers

Paleo

Paleo Wow, you are really

Paleo



Wow, you are really upset with Pose aren't you?!!



Nowhere does Dr. R claim to have invented free energy. You have either misunderstood what he is saying...or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent it. As I'm sure you know there is a lot more involved than just falling forward.



I'm assuming that as you're such an expert on Pose you'll have some of the literature - please refer to chapter 53 of the Pose Method of Triathlon Techniques book where you'll find 19 pages explaining in great detail how gravity works in running.

Dodgy, Paleo, et al, this is

Dodgy, Paleo, et al, this is an interesting discussion from a moderator's point of view.

It's testy, I suppose, but it's very very substantial and relevant to the topic of our board, which is running. So as someone with a few mod powers I can hardly squash it, but I can ask that we all refrain from making assumptions about the intentions or character of other people.

Whatever we say here, it should be based in some kind of evidence, either book learning (thanks for the references!) or personal experience. "This aspect of the instruction worked for me..." "I met Dr. Quadrangle and he struck me as..." "According to Boyle's Law, the air pressure exerted by a car salesman speaking exceeds..."

And so forth.

If you don't agree with other posters, that's fine, that's great, that's the whole point of having a forum like this. Just expose the weakness in the opposing argument.. don't assume the best or worst about the argue-er.

Edited to keep the peace

Edited to keep the peace

No, I am not upset with Pose,

No, I am not upset with Pose, nor am I deliberately misrepresenting him.

I quote you from his original book "Pose Method of Running" page 63: "The great runner is not impervious to gravity; instead he taps it as a readily available source of free energy. In the same way that the tremendous force of gravity inevitably draws a free-falling skydiver toward earth, we can appropriate the force of gravity to run further, faster and with less effort."

According to the first sentence, he believed in 2002 that gravity is a "source of free energy". I am certain that he maintained this position on his website until at least mid-2007 (when I gave up reading it). Now, a person might change his mind over time. I am more than willing to allow him that. If you care to scan in the relevant pages and email them to me, I will gladly read them and give you my opinion. I would be pleased to see that he has revised what he was saying.*

As I said, I am trying to save the man from a mistake. I have consistently praised aspects of the method, while at the same time I have criticized others.

Allow me to say it once again: I have no emotions in this discussion. It is an intellectual disagreement. I think that I have quite fairly given Romanov credit where credit is due.

If you choose to send me the pages from the triathlete book, PM me and I'll send you my real email address. I am not going to comment further here.

Cheers

Paleo



*I do not own his triathlete book, nor do I desire to. His cycling theories (at my last reading in 2007) also made questionable claims about gravity, and he combined them with ideas about a round pedal stroke that have been around for at least 50 years (I have known them since I was racing in licensed races in the mid-1980s). His ideas about the pedal stroke are openly debated in cycling circles, so although I also disagree with him here, too, I won't get into it further.

Whew! The air is pretty thick

Whew! The air is pretty thick and hot in here. Or is it just me? Maybe we should open a window to cool things off a bit. 0

Paleo wrote:This pushing

Paleo said:

This pushing happens at the moment of your foot strike. It has nothing to do with the Pull. The Pull is a useful concept, because it teaches not to think about the foot strike, thereby letting your feet do their natural thing. But, that doesn't change the fact that the foot strike (and the consequent support mechanism of our entire body) must push us back up. Ideally, we wouldn't really fall at all, nor would we push back up. This would be eliminating all vertical movement, meaning that all of our energy is invested in going forward. No one really gets to this nirvana, but good technique gets us close.

Click to expand...

So out of genuine interest, how do you only move forward?

Paleo,  I like the way they

Paleo, I like the way they handle titles in Germany! If you're a doctor of anything, by gott, you're Herr Doctor. If you have 2 doctorates, you're Herr Doctor Doctor until the day you die. Bless'm!

And what's wrong with guru's? I'm a guru. At least latently. I want to leave the option open without any of your snarky prejudices.

less talk more running

less talk more running

Paleo, Ahh, you were

Paleo,



Ahh, you were expecting super powers...no wonder you're upset!



you misunderstand the quote. He is not saying that gravity is a source of free energy which we can fill tanks with to help us fly round the universe - rather that gravity itself is "free" energy. ie provided for us gratis by mother earth. So, why not make use of this "free" energy to help us move forward, rather than the prevailing paradigm of trying to fight gravity by using unnecessary muscular tension to move us more upward than forward.







Feel free to rejoin the Church of Romanov. Our congregation of Posers welcome repentant sinners with open arms

From a newbie´s point of

From a newbie´s point of view:

I´m new to barefoot running and faced the same problem that was mentioned above: I just couldn´t do it intuitively. I needed some advice and some theory.

So I scanned through a good amount of the available material (not too deeply, admittedly) including Pose, Chi-Running, Evolution-Running and of course different barefoot-running sources like Jason Robbillard´s and Ken Bob Saxton´s.

A major difference I found is the way they make promises and focus on risks and side-effects.

The barefoot sources repeated their warnings what could happen if I applied their advice. Guess what, I didn´t take it all too seriously, but at least it helped me afterwards to learn from my mistakes. I mean after I got injured (much more than ever before with shoes!).

Pose, Chi and Evolution-Running start by promising to run more efficiently and injury-free. And just skip the warnings or maybe hide them somewhere in the small print. And that´s at least misleading, if not unsound, in my opinion.

To prove my point read this post. As far as I understood it, it was the first study on Pose-Technique. More than half of the participants where injured after making a radical transition to Pose, and they learned it quite well, because they were personally trained by Romanov over the course of one week.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/09/running-technique-part-ii-scientific.html

Apart from the risk of injury, there are also mental costs when you try to change a habit like your personal running style in a very radical way. Especially when you´re trying to match a certain style that claims to be the one and only right style. I think this causes a lot of tension and insecurity, both mental and physical.

So any advice on how to apply the technique and how to change the personal habits gradually is very important, I think. And I don´t think that the only answer to this question should be: pay for one of our classes or even personal coaching.

I didn´t find such advice so far in the material I´ve seen neither about Pose, Chi nor Evolution-Running. Of course, this might be due to my too superficial knowledge. Please correct me if I´m wrong.

"Listen to your body", "experiment" and "find your own form" on the other hand appeared to be too abstract at first but turned out to be very encouraging and helpful for my personal transition to barefoot running. And I got it for free! Thanks, Jason Robillard.

Hi Joohneschuh, Interesting

Hi Joohneschuh,



Interesting report there. That sort of story will be familiar to a lot of barefooters: TMTS.



Nice, happy ending to the report tho':



Having written that, let me now say that I still believe that the fundamental principles on which both are based are CORRECT (I don't think there's a difference between them, to be honest). That means that whatever it is that Pose is teaching, I believe is true - the centre of mass, the pulling of the foot, the balance and fall (all described yesterday). It's all sound.